Realism: The U.S., Still World’s Only Superpower

(Crossposted at My Left Wing.)

With the Iraqi people in the process of kicking the U.S.’s ass, we on the left should nevertheless avoid thinking excessively ‘direly’ (if that’s the word) about the decline of U.S. power. The old warhorse still has a lot of kick. I was reminded of this yesterday by M K Bhadrakumar’s excellent AsiaTimes article, US shadow over China-Russia ties. Bhadrakumar examines the differing perspectives of Russia and China toward the U.S. The most telling paragraph is one he finds in a recent article published in the People’s Daily. It summarizes a perhaps idealized understanding of China-Russia relations (emphasis added):

“The two countries [China and Russia] are close without having to rely on each other. They protect their own dignity with no intention to subvert the other; they manage to resolve conflicts of interest through negotiations on an equal footing … and they are both keen on developing bilateral ties with the US, the only superpower in the world today, while opposing unilateralism.”

So China at least is not the cavalry, …
… come to rescue the world from U.S. military imperialism. Frankly, it knows its place in the world. And, actually, China has good relations with the U.S., and sees keeping them strong as vital to its immediate future. Similarly, China is not ready to form an alliance with Russia, Iran and other energy-rich nations on the outs with the U.S. In fact, energy-poor but economically strong China shares interests with the similarly situated U.S. This is the way China is doing things now and in the immediate future (though of course who knows what will be the case in 15 years).

Here’s a Cliff’s Notes of Bhadrakumar’s essay:

1. China has good relations with Russia, and is moving to improve them. It has better relations with the U.S., and these relations are far more important (especially the economic component) to China.

2. The U.S. has a relation of mutual dependency with China. It has nothing like this in its relations with Russia, and so it has an aggressive policy of `containment’ (expansion of U.S. power) toward Russia, but a far more passive relationship to China.

3. Russia is without a doubt an oil/gas superpower, but this concerns China perhaps more than it attracts China to Russia.

4. In sum, China-Russia are not in the process of forming a new `superpower’ alliance (with India? Iran?) to counterbalance U.S. power.

5. Russia will increasingly be diplomatically isolated and ‘contained’ if it doesn’t accommodate itself to the power of the U.S. and the EU, or otherwise break out of Putin’s current ‘aggressive’ approach to energy relations with the economically powerful.

You should read the entire article at atimes.com, but here are a couple more paragraphs:

… a senior researcher with the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences captured the new mood in Beijing when he wrote in early January, “The Sino-US relationship is moving beyond the bilateral scope to cover regional and global security and economic matters. Exchanges at various levels and between diverse sectors, trade and economic cooperation in particular, are going ahead in a big way. By all accounts, the two countries share more interests and are becoming increasingly dependent on one another strategically and economically.”

Beijing and Washington are on the same page over the North Korea nuclear issue, in pressuring Iran to give up its uranium-enrichment program, on the imperative need of stabilizing Iraq, and in shoring up the stability of the pro-Western Arab regimes in the Middle East. Ironically, even as Putin was berating the US for its hegemonistic ambitions in global politics at the Munich security conference in February, Chinese commentators were discerning “subtle changes” in US foreign policy moving away from the doctrine of neo-conservatism, and were welcoming the “pragmatism [that is] beginning to prevail in the White House”.

Penn, not Pelosi, is the Peacenik

[Crossposted at My Left Wing]

The low point in our political debate on Iraq was reached when the Democratic leadership in Congress immediately conceded the right-wing ‘argument’ that those who want to stop funding the occupation are endangering the troops, who will be defenseless, armorless and bulletless if we don’t keep giving Bush all the money he demands. An ‘argument’ so stupid simply could not have been made (and wasn’t made) when people were fighting to end the Vietnam War. YES, IT WOULD’VE BEEN TOO F#@$KING STUPID EVEN FOR A SLIMEY WARMONGER! But now it is made, and fully accepted by the Democratic leadership in Congress, and it successfully blots out the real debate (whether we should stay or leave), ‘forcing’ the poor Democrats to fully fund Bush’s occupation out of fear of the ‘don’t support the troops’ accusation.
So with Nancy Pelosi and her ‘peace’ Congress failed, no it is not time to follow Jim Webb down his ‘better occupation’ warpath. Nope, in my humble opinion we’d better listen to Sean Penn’s brilliant Letter to President Bush, presented at Rep. Barbara Lee’s Town Hall meeting on Iraq. Saw it a few hours ago on C-SPAN but couldn’t find a transcript. But here’s my own of the beginning of the speech [OOOPs, later I found the whole letter, which more or less replicates what Penn said in Oakland]:

Sean Penn’s Letter to President Bush

Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice et al,

Indeed America has a rich history of greatness, indeed is still today a devastating military super power. And because in the absence of a brave Congress or a mobilized citizenry, that level of power lies in your hands. It is you who have misused it to become our country’s, and Constitution’s most devastating enemy. You have broken our country, and you have broken our hearts.

The needless blood on your hands, and therefore on our own, is drowning the freedom, the security and the dream that America might have been once healed of and awakened by the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

But now we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory, if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point your fingers, telling us to “support our troops.” Will you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your blood-soaked underwear, can take that noise and shove it! Because we will be `Snow-ed’ no more.

Now, let’s make this crystal clear: we do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families.

The verdict is in: you lied, connived, and exploited your own countrymen, and most of all our troops. …

The San Francisco Chronicle provides an MSM report on the town hall meeting, but don’t let that deter you. Give Sean a listen, at http://podcast.medianext.com/stations/kcbs/media/mpeg/Sean_Penn_s_Letter_to_President_Bush-117476692

0.mp3

Fairleft, Banned from Dailykos

[Crossposted at myleftwing.]

 
I’ve been banned from dailykos (it happened back on February 22). I haven’t been told why (with all that implies or does not imply (other than that kos is busy and I’m a nobody)).

However, my guess is I ‘defended’ Hillary from Republican-style attacks a little too well. See here for the fun: http://www.dailykos….. I think the following, modestly, is one of my exemplary diaries on the topic: North of Florida takes a few swings at Hillary.

I understand that a single frontpager can ban a dailykos contributor, so I wasn’t exactly invulnerable. No one (unfamous) who posts at dailkos is.

(And not that there aren’t other possible reasons for my banning: I was apparently on the other side of organized banning campaigns by probably hired hand pro-Likud kossacks).

Again, I’m not a ‘Hillary person’ but I think she should be attacked for her positions on things that really matter. (Just for example, for her belligerent stance toward Iran.) Not for refusing to say “I’m sorry I didn’t know then what I know now.” (Not to make light of this issue, I do think Hillary showed poor judgment back in 2002. But that’s a pretty common occurrence among politicians, I just generally don’t expect politicians to publicly acknowledge they’ve shown poor judgment, and I don’t think this is a particularly big deal, in the real 2007 we’re dealing with.)

My conclusion is that Dailykos is right now basically an Edwards-Obama campaign site. 64% of respondents to a March 14-15 kos poll pegged one of those two as their favorites. Hillary got 3%. I have nothing against either of those guys, but a campaign site is not a place to have a conversation.

Nor is it a place to ‘be yourself’, which is a fundamental reason why I post and diary.

In the end, I want to make my banning dailykos’s loss. And I think this is the attitude all my fellow ‘bannees’ should take. I’ll just keep on keeping on and not change a damn thing about my style or content. It looks like boomantribune is a good place to do that.

It’s nice to be here.